Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Dodge Ram (2002) fuel economy
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
What color and problems do you have with the paint?
Mine is Forest green and has alot of shading.
Thanks
The reason I rewired my stereo was because Dodge decided to make the front doors act like sub woofers, no mids or highs. All of the sound seemed like it was coming out of the windshield. Even though it has a 240 watt amp, the mixing of the music didn't work well in that big of a cab in my opinion.
I installed a nice pair of Kenwood tri-axles in the front doors, then took the leads going to the rear doors "which have the full range of music going to them" and switched them with the front.
The difference is amazing!!!!!!!!!!
As far as the paint goes, this is the softest paint I have ever seen in my life. It scratches and chips so easy its not funny. There is no excuse for this in a $33,000 truck.
My truck is Lt. Almond pearl, I have no problems with shading at all. My truck was built in Mexico.
If you don't feel comfortable tearing your dash apart to get to the crossover you can pull up the moldings "carefully" and get at the wiring that way.
The only reason I took apart the dash was because I thought the crossover would be adjustable "like it should be" but its not. The output is set internally.
What kind of mileage are you getting with your truck? motor,? 4x4? gears? tires? and where do you live.
I read all of the inputs in here and the mileage that people are getting and it looks like I'm doing really well with mine. If I were a "flatlander" I could easily get another 2 or 3 mpg.
I have the 4.7 liter engine. 4x4 quad cab. 3.92 ratio with 20 inch wheels.
I do alot of city driving, stop and go stuff....I usually get about 12.2 - 12.5 in these situations.
Cruising at 70 down the highway I get about 15 -15.5 overall. On a long, straight, flat stretch of highway I get 17 - 18
From my current understanding this is relatively high compared to more recent trends in engine design. Honda, Nissan and Toyota design philosophies tend to keep ring pressure around 3-6 pounds and I think GM, at least, is even lower at around 2 pounds.
Using higher ring pressures will increase internal friction values significantly which will have a negative effect on fuel consumption. Engine break-in will likely be prolonged, much longer than low pressure ring engines.
Fortunately, this also means a more reliable break-in and might benefit long term engine service with respect to maintaining compression and low oil usage over the life of the engine.
I know that GM engines in particular suffer in both of these respects, especially oil consumption. Under high cylinder pressure conditions (high piston velocities) engines with low ring pressures can actually lose some compression as the ring begins to float off of the surface of the cylinder wall.
The bottom line is that fuel consumption with the 4.7 may not stabize until break-in is complete.
Dusty
Yes, increasing the ring pressure would increase initial cylinder and possibly ring wear. However, this is dependent to a degree on material hardness and how the cylinder walls are prepared prior to assembly. The rougher the final finish the more material will likely be lost through the break-in period, or until the cylinder walls become very smooth from ring honing. After this point cylinder wear should slow down significantly. Engine designers can control this through material and finishing selection.
Dusty
Will let you all know the mileage data when we return to Baltimore. I have about 10600 miles on a 02 QC 4.7l 2wd Auto with 3.55 LSD and the 17" cast aluminum rims.
Back to business Total miles for trip were 1068 The truck shifted wonderfully when the speed control was on, it did not search for gears the same way my 01 QC 5.2L auto did last year. The total MPG for the trip was 17.8 with the AC on and speed set to 71 mph. So with all things said the mpg seems to be getting better now that the engine is broken in.
Here is what I avg:
Pulling - 15.2 MPG
Not pulling - 26.3 MPG
I drive 62-65 pulling and 65mph not pulling.
JW
I don't know anybody that's bought a V10, either a Dodge or a Ford, that cared about fuel consumption.
Dusty
run screaming from the V10...it's nOT WORTH IT.
i have a 2001 2500 4x4 w/ the V10, low gears
& get 8-9 mpg city (empty truck!)
it also sounds like a limp-dick V-6
get the 360...it'll give you all the power you need, OK gas mileage, & sounds a helluva lot better than the 10
The recent RAM mileage reports seem much better based on conversations with current owners. I talked to one individual who reported a high of 19.8 and his weekly average at 16 mpg (RAM Quad, SWB, 4x2, 4.7). He now has 11,000 miles on it.
Like other aspects of the various trucks, I think this fuel mileage topic is filled with so many non-uniform comparisons to warrant the subject almost useless. I had the opportunity to ride with a fellow who said his 2002 RAM Quad with the 4.7 "got lousy mileage" (14 mpg). He loves his Quad despite his unhappiness with the mileage. He commented about the "engine sound" (read: exhaust note) which he had plenty of praise for. I also could not help observe that he was really liking that sound since we were launching off of each stop sign and light with a fury. This man was not driving to get the best mileage, so if he was getting 14mpg I was going to do better with the same truck.
I just happen to notice a fuel mileage topic here regarding another brand of truck. The comments were interesting, considering some of the past commentors that tried to offend Dodge by trying to claim much higher consistent fuel mileage for the same make:
"I purchased a 2002 1500HD 4X4 in July of this year. I got 7MPG with the first two tanks of gas. I returned it to the Dealer for service. They found a calibration fault in the computer. After fixing the fault I got 10MPH (city). I took it back to the dealer and was told nothing could be done until it had about 3000 miles on it. OK. I took a 400 mile trip pulling a trailer with 2 ATV's on it and got 10MPG. I have dueled the exhaust with 2 FloMasters and 3" pipe out the back. I have installed a K&N air filter and still only get between 11 - 12MPG city. I do not have a heavy foot or make allot of quick start and stops. So I would have to say that I am very dissapointed in the gas mileage of the 6.0L engine."
"Last tank of gas i got 11.2 on my 5.3 ext cab 4wd. “
"I get less than 9 (city) with my 8.1 and on the road ,less than 14.”
" '98 K1500 5.7 AT ExtCab SB 3.73 with Fiberglass shell and Toyo Wild Country LT265s. Average about 14-15 city and 16-17 highway. In town I am the old man in the truck who is always in your way when you are in a hurry and the bumper in your rearview if you're lolligaggin'."
I just returned from a 290 mile scouting trip in a F150 extended cab, 4x2, 4.8 and automatic. We got 14.5mpg. A fairly judicious driver, I might add who never got over 60 MPH. A fair cry from the 18-20 mpg I've heard reported.
I think this topic suffers from a great deal of dishonesty, to the point where the subject is probably relegated to little practical value other than to serve as a way for some to claim themselves -- through their equipment -- superior, especially the obviousness of owners of competitive makes who visit other sites just to belittle the other person's purchase.
Dusty
Opinions are like backsides. Everyone has one, and they are shaped by where we've been.
There are variables in the reports that are not presented in the related mpg results, yours included. Some of them you have suggested in your post.
In addition to your noting the difference in driving styles, there are also the topographic variances and actual fuel available. Different brands, additives, and regional differences. When we get the oxygenated gas from California, MPGs drop. At the same time, the weather is cooler (just like your NY area).
Relax, take the posts for what they are. An opinion or observation related by someone who may or may not know how to actually calculate MPGs. There have been MPG posts that appear to have been done using the position of the fuel gauge needle.
There is an averaging factor that tells me that my '98 K1500 is getting is "in the range".
Oh, by the way... The Toyos are the Open Country, not Wild Country as I misstated above. In a controlled environment test, it would make a difference. But with my own foot, there are variances due to schedules and the "fun factor" of driving.
I like what I read about the new Dodge Truck. It'll be a couple years before I plan to replace my truck (bought used), with another (likely used) model. It's my prudent responsibility to know what the options are for that future event. Especially if someone runs into my current truck and I have no choice but to replace it sooner.
Keep on Truckin' folks and keep on tellin' us about your experiences, including MPG. ;-)
But I think you missed my point.
All single reports are anecdotal. When individuals report on fuel consumption of a particular vehicle, it is taken for granted by anyone with a modicum of intelligence that it is representative of only one vehicle, the specific driver, and the environmental conditions for which the vehicle is being used. It may also be true that some vehicle's fuel consumption is impacted by the mechanical state of that particulr vehicle and may not represent the average or perfect state.
However, that is not purpose of some of the posts viewed here at the Dodge RAM site. It is obvious to me that some reports were issued solely to convey that Brand X or Brand Z was inherently better. I believe that there were some claims that were truly not average, but represented the most optimistic valve that could be obtained and was offered in such a way to convince that these values WERE the average. This was done, in my opinion, to intentionally mislead.
The EPA values for automobiles and trucks are not arbitrary prevarications that are dreamed up by the manufacturers. Despite the fact that ALL manufacturers test their vehicles at laboratories of their own chosing, these results are almost always certified by an independent company. The EPA only validates the test results for about 10-15% of the models.
The test criteria and procedures are mandated by the US government and are certified that they have been consistently applied across all makes and models. They are conducted on a dynamometer and the test cycles are performed by professional drivers. Extraneous forces that negatively impact fuel consumption are accounted for in these test procedures.
The EPA states that 90% of real drivers in actual use will realize the city cycle fuel mileage figure, and that 78% will obtain the EPA highway figure. The Dodge RAM city/highway numbers as certified by the EPA fall right in and are competitive with other makes. Yet when reports were offered that indicated values at the mid or upper range of the EPA value, some immediately claimed that these reports could not be true for other RAMs, either because they were not getting the same results, or others owning brand X or brand Z claimed otherwise.
Maybe you will now understand my point. Having noted first hand how optimistic people can be about their fuel mileage and how important it is for some juvenile people to visit other sites just to denegrate the other fellows hardware, I am convinced that the RAM's potential fuel mileage is no better or no worse than direct competitive makes and models.
Now, it does appear that the 4.7 engine may require a longer break-in period in order to obtain the full EPA range, but I am also cognizant that some people, if they aren't realizing better fuel mileage values themselves, will never be able to accept the fact that they alone are probably the major contributing factor.
Dusty
However, I take issue with your assertion that "...the RAM's potential fuel mileage is no better or no worse than direct competitive makes and models"
I have known of no one who gets "good" mileage with a 5.9, when compared to it's "competition" (GM 5.3, ford 5.4).
Dusty, you went to great length validating the EPA ratings. Let's assume they're very accurate.
Is 12/17 (2002 Dodge QC 5.9 4x2) equal to 15/19 (2002 GM Ext. 4x2 5.3) in your mind? For me and my wallet, those numbers aren't even close.
Yes, you can talk about the reasons all day long (5.9L is more displacement, Dodge is heavier, etc.). But it doesn't change the facts. Don't blame Chevy for producing a lighter truck that's just as capable and has a more advanced engine that gets better MPG while delivering more HP and only slightly less torque.
Not trying to tick anyone off. I am glad to have the mileage discussions.
I own ZERO trucks and am not trying to bash any manufacturer. I wish to own a truck- open to any of the big 3 (Tundra back seat is pitiful!). As an objective consumer looking for the best truck value, the 5.9 is an outdated gas guzzler, as obyone says.
Just my .02
I normally agree with you, and I think all your points are valid. I just can't agree about the 5.9 being competitive, though. I do think it gets fair MPG for it's size and the Ram's weight... but with current engine technology 5.9L just isn't necessary to get 245 HP and 335 lb-ft torque. I know you could say it more directly competes with Chevy's 6.0 liter. But it's power numbers aren't close to that engine. They're closer to the 5.3.
I am anxious to hear mileage reports for the new 5.7 hemi. It's peak power/torque numbers are way better than the 5.9. And Dodge says it is a large improvement in fuel economy over the 5.9. Hmmmm... more HP, torque, and gas mileage- that should prove that the 5.9 is outdated.
I promise I am unbiased. In fact, I plan on buying a RAM w/ 5.7 if it is a large fuel economy improvement over the 5.9 as Dodge claims.
BTW- I am still considering a QC w/ 4.7, that is why I am reading this message board. But I am leaning towards the new 5.7
Does anyone know when they will put the 5.7 in the 1500? Halfway though this year? Next year?
I've often wondered how people arrive at numbers like ....10 mpg around town and 15mpg freeway doing 80 mph. If I'm doing a test for mpg, I top off the tank and log my mileage. At the next fillup, I top off the tank and log the gallons used and compare to the miles I've driven. There is no way that I would attempt to break it down to city/hwy.
I'm glad to see Dodge finally moving forward with the new 5.7 and I only wished that the V10 Viper motor was avaiable in a quad cab and for under $50k.
FWIW- I live in Lubbock, Texas. Most trips we take to visit friends/family are very long and I would consider them all highway miles.
For example: My wife and I have parents near D/FW. We fill up as we leave Lubbock, and fill up again (and check mileage) as we arrive in their town at the end of a nearly 6 hour, 370+ mile trip. We have used various routes. But usually, we take HWY 84 to I-20 to HWY 287 all the way into their town. When we go this route over 90% of our trip is spent above 65 mph. I'm saying 90% conservatively. Probably closer to 95% in reality. There is only one small town we go through b/w gas stations- Midlothian, TX. It has 2 or 3 stoplights and the speed limit is b/w 30-45 mph. It is about 5 miles all the way through town. There is about a 8 mile stretch before and after Midlothian with a 55 mph speed limit- but everyone drives 65 the whole way through it anyway.
You can look at a map to verify these claims if you wish. Remember, on a 370+ mi trip, for us to spend 10% below 55 mph means driving for 37 mi at 55 mph or below. I can guarantee we don't even come close to that. To me, the estimates I get for this trip can accurately be reported as all-highway mileage.
Others may have different opinions. I believe highway mileage reporting can be very useful and realistic- wind, average speed, and topography are the main variables. Driving style doesn't affect it nearly as much as in city driving.
On the other hand, I personally believe that city mileage is hard to gauge and unreliable, because cities/towns are so different in terms of speed limits, traffic, stoplights/stopsigns, etc.
What I call all-city mileage is mileage from one whole tank of gas, spent by ME, in MY car, in Lubbock. I would say it is accurate city mileage for me or someone driving like me, in Lubbock. In reality, it is mixed driving even though I never get on a highway, b/c of speed limits and long stretches b/w lights. I understand this is not a good comparison for someone in Atlanta, or someone in a town of <10,000, or someone with a lead foot.
My good friend's hometown is very small, by comparison to Lubbock. Many would think his mileage would be better there due to less traffic. It is actually much worse, because he has far more stopsigns everywhere he goes (though few stoplights!). The constant stop/start kills mileage there. In Lubbock, you may drive "in-town" for 2-4 miles at 50 mph before you hit a light... this is like hwy driving in the middle of town. So even though your whole tank may be spent "in-town", you've really experienced mixed-driving.
This is why I don't trust city mileage as much.
Obyone, I hope this helps. And I agree, the window sticker is the best thing short of firsthand experience.
Also, I amazed at how many people post gas mileage but don't truly know how to calculate it. I can't count how many mileage posts I've seen where it was "calculated" using either:
1) car's mileage computer (like GM's DIC system)
2) using the dash fuel gauge
Why don't people see that this is not accurate!
BTW, I live on a rock and even at freeway speeds, I'd say it would depend on how many people you've passed at WOT....but that's getting too anal. You can check my profile as to which rock I'm referring to. ;-)
And forget Chicago, we know just as much about wind here in West Texas.
So yes, in answer to your question, I agree a 20 mph headwind would make a difference. In fact, I once had a difference of 5 mpg on that trip I mentioned, which I attributed solely to wind.
But we have made this trip 10 times already in our new car, and have made other similarly long trips another 6-8 times. Therefore I feel my that my AVG. highway mileage (I keep meticulous records) is probably accurate as it stands. It has probably evened out already, similar to your example of the return trip with exact same conditions (but in opposite direction)
I checked your profile. I can understand your problems getting accurate mileage tests. Hey, I think I remember you from engine knock discussions. Did you have problems with that?
BTW- I wouldn't mind living on your rock
>>I have known of no one who gets "good" mileage with a 5.9, when compared to it's "competition" (GM 5.3, ford 5.4).<<
Please remember that I was solely addressing fuel consumption. Why was the larger displacement 5.9 Dodge engine compared to the 5.3 GM or 5.4 Ford? Why wasn't the 4.7 Dodge engine compared to those two? For the sake of comparing fuel consumption, comparing the 5.9 Chrysler engine to the two previously mentioned seems quite arbitrary since on paper the 5.9 Chrysler represents the extreme example in power and fuel consumption.
>>Is 12/17 (2002 Dodge QC 5.9 4x2) equal to 15/19 (2002 GM Ext. 4x2 5.3) in your mind?<<
No it isn't. But why wasn't the 4.7 Dodge engine compared to the 4.6 Ford and the 4.8 GM engines? For that matter, why wasn't the 3.7 Dodge V6 compared to the 4.2 Ford and 4.3 GM?
Comparisons for the subject of fuel consumption are not perfectly clean, either by using displacement or horsepower/torque ratings. But in terms of FUEL CONSUMPTION, I believe the Dodge RAM can compete with their small V8 (14-19 vs 16-20) and their V6 (15-21 vs. 16-20), despite being close to 500 pounds heavier than the F150 series. But even if you don't agree that Dodge fuel consumption figures are competitive, my main point about anecdotal claims attempting to be passed as empirically representative and consistent averages stands on its own.
Dusty
I guess that's one of the positives of leasing.
We coming back for da week of Haoli New Years.
I didn't use the gm 4.8 or the ford 4.6 or the dodge 4.7 b/c I have little to no experience with any of them.
As to the 5.9 vs. 5.3- I think it is a fair comparison.
>>>comparing the 5.9 Chrysler engine to the two previously mentioned seems quite arbitrary since on paper the 5.9 Chrysler represents the extreme example in power and fuel consumption<<<
Extreme example in fuel consumption, yes. But extreme example in power? Did you mean extreme low example?
"On paper" the 5.9 is good for 245 HP vs. 285 HP for the 5.3. That is a huge win for the 5.3. The 5.9 only makes 10 ft-lb more peak torque. Obviously, that peak is lower in the rpm range, and the torque curve will be better than 5.3 due to displacement. I'm not trying to sell the 5.9 short- it wins the torque battle. I'm just saying the comparison is very fair and equal in the power department- only in fuel consumption does the 5.9 lose horribly. The fact that an engine over a half liter smaller has basically the same power/torque output as the 5.9 supports my main point- the 5.9 is outdated.
The 5.9 is a better comparison to 5.3 (more equal) than the 4.7 would be due to power output, IMO. I also am quite certain the majority of prospective truck buyers are comparing the 5.9 vs 5.3 vs 5.4 and the 4.7 vs 4.8 vs 4.6, respectively. These engines are at the same "step levels" with regards to options/price (ie 4.7 is smallest Dodge V8, 4.8 is smallest Chevy and so on).
As to your question about not comparing the 4.7 vs. 4.8, well, as I said, I have no experience with either engine. Also, I never said that the 4.7 wasn't competitive in fuel economy. I simply said it is lower than the larger GM 5.3 based on the EPA ratings (probably due to vehicle weight). It is still competitive, just not quite as good.
I noticed you mentioned the Dodge 3.7 V6 is competitive with the Chevy/Ford V6. This makes me laugh. You fault me for comparing the 5.3 and 5.4 to the 5.9- specifically because the displacement of 5.9 is so much greater.
Yet you choose to come back at me with the numbers for the Dodge 3.7 V6 vs. the Ford 4.2 and Chevy 4.3 V6.
Am I missing something? Dusty, the 5.9 is .5 and .6 liters bigger than the Ford/Chevy V8's, respectively. The 3.7 V6 is .5 and .6 liters SMALLER than the Ford/Chevy V6's, respectively. This seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
What's more, even though the disadvantages are the same, the Dodge V6 still doesn't run away with the economy ratings (vs 4.2 & 4.3) the way the Chevy/Ford V8's do (vs 5.9)!
Anyway, I didn't realize you were only discussing the 4.7. My whole point was that the 5.9 was outdated. I like the 4.7 just fine and I am interested in learning more about it. That's why I read this topic.
I think everyone agrees with you that comparisons for fuel consumption are not "perfectly clean". Only in a lab.
It is possible that the Dodge 4.7 EPA rating would be better in the Chevy than the GM 5.3 is.
Still, if the Chevy or Fords transmission, weight, aerodynamics, etc. have positive fuel economy effects vs the Dodge, then that has to go into my equation.
Sorry if an engine gets any undeserved blame, but I don't drive in a lab either. I buy the whole package, not just an engine.
Again, my response:
5.9-5.3= .6 5.9-5.4= .5
5.4-4.7= .7 5.3-4.7= .6
Going by your displacement-unfairness logic, it would be even more unfair to compare the 5.4/5.3 to the 4.7 than it is to compare those engines to the 5.9.
Yet they still more than hold their own with the 4.7 in EPA mileage ratings. The same can't be said of the 5.9 when compared to them.
Anyway, not trying to start a war here.
I didn't realize your original post was about the 4.7 solely. My whole contention was that the 5.9 is aging and it ain't pretty. It's mileage is similar to GM's 6.0, but it's power isn't even close.
I agree w/ you Dusty, most information about fuel mileage is so anecdotal that it is almost useless.
Yet here I am reading the topic.
Obviously, your still here too
If so, why the step backwards? It seems 3.7 is an awful small V6 for any 4-door truck. Especially one as heavy as the Dodge. What is the torque like? Has anyone driven one?
I drove a Liberty w/ 3.7, and wasn't terribly impressed (it wasn't bad, just nothing to write home about). The RAM QC is heavier, I can't see that engine being any fun.
akjbmw
Was out at Bellows AF doing an inspection. Man that beach looked great. Don't know if you've done it before but they have cabins out there as rentals. They must be ok as the former Pres. Clinton stayed in one of them....you should check them out.
Back on topic...
The 3.7 wins in the HP department but loses in torque. For its displacement its still rated with the worse gas mileage out of the three when compared to the 4.2 and 4.3 according to Edmunds.
Four years ago we stayed at DeRussy (sp?)and spent a day at Bellows. The rest of that week was painful moving as my haoli skin got toasted.
This time the visit will be centered around a College Gymnastic meet that we will watch. Go Bruins.
Remember folks, keep posting those mileage figures... We'll sort it out. ;-)
I assure you my opinion was not formed in a vacuum. I happen to know people, too, that own some of these truck/engine combinations and they are not realizing -- in some case not even close -- to some of the claims made here. I even went so far as to rent a 5.4 Ford and a 4.7 RAM and got a remarkably uncanny similiar mileage on both with the same load and driven under almost identical conditions (.3 difference). Now, maybe under certain conditions a 5.3 GM or a 5.4 Ford will get 18-20 mpg, but in some posts here at the Dodge truck topic there was an attempt to portray that level of performance as typical or "average." This was being used in the context of the RAM Quad Cab 4.7 discussion where some reports were as low as 11 mpg for that engine and vehicle combination and some of the non-RAM owning visitors were trying to claim both the low RAM reports and the high brand X reports as typical.
I restated yesterday and I repeat, I was only addressing fuel consumption irrespective of the advertised horsepower or torque ratings. Making comparisons to the various engines cannot be directly correlative since Dodge, Ford, and GM were not accomodating enough to produce engines with exactly the same displacement or the same horsepower/torque ratings. For example, just comparing the 5.3 GM (270hp @ 325) to the 5.4 Ford (260hp @ 350) could be frought with contention.
Now as an aside, I happen to know someone who's gone from a 1997 5.9 RAM to a 2001 5.3 Silverado and he claims that his Dodge would "out pull" his Chevy. You need to be careful with just reading the horsepower and EPA ratings. It depends on the RPM range that power and torque is made and how it equates to everyday versus work-type driving.
The 5.4 Ford I rented seemed to have more apparent power driving it around without a load, compared to the 4.7 Dodge Quad Cab. But when I loaded them up the same ATV and other gear, the weight was much more noticeable in the Ford.
Regards,
Dusty
As far as gas mileage I can only personally compare the Ford 4.6 and 5.4 with the Dodge 5.9, I have owned one of each and the 5.9 got better gas mileage than the 4.6 and about 1 MPG less than the 5.4. I get 1 MPG less than my friend with the GM 5.3 but that is him driving not me so take that with a grain of salt.
You said:
"You need to be careful with just reading the horsepower and EPA ratings. It depends on the RPM range that power and torque is made and how it equates to everyday versus work-type driving."
You yourself were the one who went to great lengths to show that the EPA ratings are reliable and representative of avg. everyday driving (a few posts back). Not me.
As to the HP paper numbers, yeah, your right. It should be apparent from my old posts that I already know this. I already said in my previous post that the 5.9 would have a better torque curve (along with it's slightly higher peak "paper" rating) due to displacement advantage over 5.3. It probably has a better (flatter) HP curve as well. But it's HP at any given RPM is still unlikely to be higher than the 5.3 b/c the "peak" difference (40 HP) is huge. Not that it's impossible, but I'm sure the 5.3 HP curve isn't shaped like an upside down "V"- it would have to be to lose the HP edge. I never based anything solely on paper numbers- I even included (in my old post) why the paper numbers don't tell the whole story. Therefore I really don't see what your warning me about?
I have no doubt your friends 5.9 may have "out pulled" the 5.3. It has more torque across the board. Of course, your friends seat of the pants assessment is anecdotal- just like the fuel mileage reports.
It's entirely possible that his new 5.3 would beat his old 5.9 in a stoplight race- but the 5.9 "feels" faster because it has more torque. Not saying that this is the case, just saying that it's all relative and anecdotal until someone atually tests it. Actually, now that I think of it, I'm sure we could get 0-60 numbers from Car & Driver, Edmunds, etc. to compare the two. I bet the Chevy wins. Dodge might win with a huge load, though. Which makes the 5.9 a good truck engine, IMO! Just low on mileage for my tastes.
I'd take the gas mileage advantage of the Chevy (per the EPA) as I don't need to pull more than 4000 lbs.
Dusty, I doubt we disagree as much as it seems
But from personal experience (friends/family), the 5.3 seems to get some better mileage (on avg.) This makes it the current ideal choice for me, since I don't tow a lot and mileage is the bigger factor. The knock issue scares me. But for total package, I agree the 5.4 is best right now.
Of course, I've yet to drive the Dodge 4.7. And the new hemi may easily establish itself as the leader. I know it's numbers look high in the RPM range, but I read somewhere that it has something like 300 lb-ft at idle. I can't wait to drive one.
I live in Alaska and everywhere you travel up here it involves at least 1 mountain range normally it is 2 ranges, as a result most trucks that have the smaller V-8 will spend lots of time in 3rd gear and normally get worse gas mileage than the larger engines.
I've driven two 4.7s (both 3.55s) and I found them more than adequate, including my trip down I-390. Between Dansville, NY and the PA state line there are plenty of hills. Even loaded with the ATV I thought it had better than adequate reserve power. Of course, I might be easlier to please in the horsepower department.
I think you might find that when new the 4.7s are pretty tight engines. Several people have commented to me that after several thousand miles of break-in the 4.7 starts to come to life. It seems to affect gas mileage that way, too.
You said your 5.9 RAM has the 3.55 gears. I was under the impression that for the last few years at least, the 5.9 automatically got you the 3.91 axle as standard and the 3.55 was an option. Did you order your truck?
Dusty
What would be expected differences between say 3.55 vs. 3.92 vs. 4.10?
I know there are several factors but I'm only wondering what is realistic (not exact numbers)? Is .5 mpg realistic? 1 mpg? 2 mpg?
What have y'all seen?
BTW- I hate when people post mpg reports w/out all the info (ie. 4x2, 3.92, etc.). Sometimes they don't even post the engine or transmission type, that is the worst.